DVDActive uses cookies to remember your actions, such as your answer in the poll. Cookies are
also used by third-parties for statistics, social media and advertising. By using this website, it is
assumed that you agree to this.

Forums - Discs & Movies - MUNICH

Reply

Message

Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.

Aaron Schneiderman wrote: Gabe Powers wrote: And the thread dies... You all need to do a little history check and read what people write a little more carefully. Enemy combatants are not granted jurisprudence.

What?!? Why are you quoting me? I was just remarking on the fact that the film side of this discussion was over and the thread was effectivly dead in my eyes.

I think one of the main reasons why the death squads were the incorrect way of dealing with the situations is summed up in the following sentence quoted from another website

"On July 21, 1973, in the so-called Lillehammer affair, a team of Mossad agents killed Ahmed Bouchiki, a Moroccan man unrelated to the Munich attack, in Lillehammer, Norway, after an informant mistakenly said Bouchiki was Ali Hassan Salameh, the head of Force 17 and a Black September operative. Five Mossad agents, including two women, were captured by the Norwegian authorities, while others managed to slip away. The five were convicted of the killing and imprisoned, but were released and returned to Israel in 1975."

I use to live in the outer circle of the Mall where they filmmed Bill and Ted, and I worked at the Kinkos. Those were the early days of DVD, and I bled every video store in a 30 mile radius dry of horror flicks. Good times. A damn site warmer than it is here, but a little too warm if you ask me.

But I digress... Nope, I'm not kidding, I thought that Speilberg did a decent job showing the majority of the Nazi grunts as the ignorant order followers they were. I'll not argue that The National Socialist party was created by monsters, but I think the majority of Germans were mislead, rather than being monsters, but I may be confusing terms here, as I'm not sure that all German's wer actually considered Nazis at the time.

As far as Munich goes, I'm not (as I'm sure you've already guessed) an "eye for an eye" kind of guy, and did enjoy drawing my own conclusions about the events. I'm pretty much of the belief that pretty much everyone involved in the conflict is guilty of varying degrees of guilt (edit: that was perhaps the single worst sentence I've ever typed, damn this typing while busy at work). Yes, I would give Bin Ladin his day in court if he surrendered, but we both know that'll never happen. I have a feeling his kidneys will kill him before any allied troops get their chance at him.

I do want to make it very clear that I'm not condoning any of Palistines actions in the film, incase there was any evidence to the contrary.

Gabe Powers wrote: Sorry Aaron, but facts is facts, as they say, and I'd say that he took a surprisingly objective look at the Nazi's in Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan. I'd argue that he never presented them as pure monsters. Also, if you haven't seen the film, perhaps you shouldn't make claims to its message.

But on another note, it said in your DVDprofiler that you live in AZ and I'm curious as to which part, care to share the general area?

You must be kidding Gabe. Maybe we saw a different version of "Schindlers List." And by the way, the Nazis WERE monsters. I am not criticizing the quality of the filmmaking. However, I have heard enough from Spielberg's own lips about the subject matter to make comment. I live in Phoenix.

Israel has been in a state of war with its neighbors since its birth. I suppose you would also give Bin Laden his day in court? During wartime, you kill the enemy before he kills you. The rest of the world isn't as idealistic as the pampered American people. You my friend, are incredibly naive.

Sorry Aaron, but facts is facts, as they say, and I'd say that he took a surprisingly objective look at the Nazi's in Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan. I'd argue that he never presented them as pure monsters. Also, if you haven't seen the film, perhaps you shouldn't make claims to its message.

But on another note, it said in your DVDprofiler that you live in AZ and I'm curious as to which part, care to share the general area?

Gabe Powers wrote: The whole point was that he was showing both sides of the coin, and had he chosen a side, he would've been wrong in someone's eyes, and that's what was keeping him from making the film for the past decade anyway.

Really? Did he take a side in "Schindler's List?" I guess filmmakers (especially the Jewish ones like Spielberg) should take another look at Adolf Hitler. I mean after all, shouldn't we be more sympathetic to him and his Nazi followers for what Europe did to the German economy post WWI? His desire to play both sides is as bizarre as the idea to try and be sympathetic to Hitler's final solution. Moral equivalency has run amok. His decision to show a sympathetic side to blood thirsty terrorists is an abomination to freedom-loving people. There is right and wrong, black and white, good and evil. Mr. Spielberg's politically-correct take on the Munich tragedy kept me and many other people away from the cineplexes.

Saw Munich a couple of times ( I work in a cinema). Thought it was a great film. Works better as a spy/men on a mission film than it does political statement. But it was a brave move and a rare mature film - a real treat amongst a sea cheaper by the dozens and deuce bigalows.

Spielberg seems to be getting very prolific without a drop in quality. This is great news for all film fans.

The whole point was that he was showing both sides of the coin, and had he chosen a side, he would've been wrong in someone's eyes, and that's what was keeping him from making the film for the past decade anyway.

I saw Munich this past weekend. Of course with all of the Oscar talk I was expecting an eye opening film. I feel that part of the film was such but the rest of the film I couldn't tell which side of the coin Spielberg was trying to show.

Was it two wrongs don't make a right?

Live by the sword die by the sword?

Necessity is the mother of invention?

Or was it just don't trust any form of government?

I guess I would of liked the film more if I could tell where it stood on the matters, but none the less a good biopic.

Warranted or not is not the point, the point is that death squads aren't exactly light hearted. I think Speilberg did an admirable job showing the film in as objective a manner as possible in a Hollywood release. Stanton said they weren't shown in a positive light, and I was saying that it wasn't like stuff was made up about them. His opinion of the Israeli's actions seems to have been a negative one, and I don't see how you could possibly show them in any more positive a light without making things up.

stanton heck wrote: Well I saw Munich it was a very good movie but the Israel goverment to me wasn't shown in a positive light but that's me! However this is another movie that was 15 minutes too long!

Well, it happened, it's not Speilberg's responsibility to lie about public knowledge. What part of a "death-squad" is suppose to be positive?

I didn't see too many films in theaters this year, but Munich was my favorite.

Went to see this last night and I was blown away ... Spielberg for me has done it again made a great, intriging and throughly Adult movie .. thought provoking and while I`ve been online I`ve been looking at newspaper reports about the movie and it cause some outrage as it believed to show what the Israel goverment did in a posative light ...